############################################################ How West Germany Taught a Lesson to the NPD By Rainer Blasius FRANKFURT. The National Democratic Party (NPD), which German officials are working to ban, has been the target of a similar effort in the past. The first attempt dates back to the late 1960s, to the time of a divided Germany and the Cold War. On Dec. 12, 1968, Ernst Benda, West Germany's interior minister, presented a cabinet proposal to the head of the chancellor's office, Karl Carstens. Mr. Benda was seeking authority to apply to West Germany's constitutional court for a ruling on whether the right-wing extremist NPD violated the constitution. His submission included an account of the party's history since it was founded in Hannover in 1964. According to Mr. Benda's account, the NPD had been formed by 3,500 members of the former German Reich Party and 500 former supporters of splinter groups. It estimated the party's membership at around 30,000. At the time, the NPD had a total of 60 elected representatives in the state legislatures of Hesse, Bavaria, Schleswig-Holstein, Rhineland-Palatinate, Lower Saxony, Bremen and Baden-W�rttemberg. In addition, it reportedly had close to 550 representatives in district, county and municipal councils. Mr. Benda backed up his request with an array of arguments. They included that the party disregarded the "principle of international understanding," that it asserted "territorial claims," that it displayed "overt racism," and that it wanted to grant the German president "dictatorial powers." The Interior Ministry also noted that the party promoted "aggressive anti-Semitism" and sought to trivialize the Nazi policy of exterminating the Jewish people. The Justice Ministry responded to the report a few days later, expressing reservations about whether some of the claims could be proven. In one instance, it raised questions about the assertion that the party was seeking changes to the constitution that would seriously weaken the parliament and grant dictatorial powers to the president instead. The rise of the NPD also had an effect on West Germany's foreign relations in the 1960s. The Soviets frequently accused the West German government of inaction on the matter. In response, Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger wrote to the Soviet ambassador on March 1, 1968: "If the NPD were clearly a neo-Nazi party in character, it would be possible to take legal measures against it. The fact is that the NPD, understanding its precarious position, acts very cautiously." Mr. Kiesinger also called the party "a most unfortunate phenomenon," but said a ban application could only be filed if the party "committed a clear breach of the constitution." Communist East Germany joined the Soviet propaganda push, which asserted that West Germany was turning "fascist again." The East Germans also went beyond these verbal assertions. On March 18, 1968, they issued a decree that barred NPD members from West Germany and West Berlin from entering East Germany and traveling through its territory. The East German move troubled West Germany's allies. France's foreign minister, Maurice Couve de Murville, told his German counterpart, Willy Brandt, of his concern that a stronger NPD influence could damage the city's image. After the talks, on July 22, 1968, Mr. Brandt told the chancellor that, as foreign minister, he favored an early application to have the party banned. Before the government decided to act, however, West Berlin's Senate pushed ahead without consulting the federal government. On Oct. 1, 1968, the mayor of West Berlin, Klaus Sch�tz, asked the city's Allied rulers to ban the local NPD organization. He cited "deep concerns for the security of Berlin" and said that it would be unwise to wait for a decision by the constitutional court. The Western Allies were far from happy over West Berlin's decision to go it alone. They said they could foresee serious difficulties if the NPD were banned in West Berlin but not in West Germany, of which Berlin was not officially a part. This issue became moot in mid-October, when the NPD executive decided to disband its organization in West Berlin. Elsewhere, the issue remained very much alive. On Dec. 18, 1968, the West German cabinet discussed Mr. Benda's paper. The cabinet demanded that he support his decision for an application to ban the party by providing copious material proving the NPD was clearly in breach of the country's constitution. It also called on him to "include in his considerations" other radical groups, such as the German Communist Party formed in 1968, which was a successor to the old Communist Party of Germany, which was banned in 1956, and the Socialist German Student League. The public did not learn of these considerations and was told only that a decision about the NPD had been put off. The following day, Mr. Kiesinger told a Norwegian diplomat that his government could not afford to have an application for an NPD ban rejected. But he went on to tell the envoy: "The best thing would be the threat of a ban. Many voters would reject a party under threat of being banned." Mr. Kiesinger firmly believed that the strong wave of recruits for the NPD consisted mainly of disgruntled farmers and those people who were joining in response to the student riots of the time. The cabinet took up the issue again on April 23. Leaders determined that the material presented in support of a ban on the NPD was substantial, but said that a constitutional court decision could not be expected before the federal elections set for the fall. As a result, the government, a grand coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, called on German voters to make their own judgment about a party that it declared to be "harmful to German interests." The government's gamble paid off. In those elections, which resulted in the formation of a coalition government of the Social Democratic and Free Democratic parties under Mr. Brandt, the NPD polled only 4.3 percent of votes and thus failed to clear the 5-percent hurdle for representation in the West German parliament. November 7 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 ############################################################ A Real Threat? G�nther Nonnenmacher It is a curious turn of events. Interior Minister Otto Schily abandoned his original skepticism and became one of the leaders of the campaign to have the National Democratic Party banned. His old argument that a ban would force right-wing extremists underground and make them more difficult to monitor no longer applies. Those who once held the principle of a "democracy willing to defend itself" in contempt have now discovered its great importance. They have reread the evidence and found new dangers. They have even resorted to talk-show rhetoric: The NPD, they say, should stop receiving state funding -- as if the equally unsavory German People's Union receives less than the NPD. Because the whole thing smacks less of principle than of opportunism, it is hoped the constitutional court will be impressed by an application filed by the government and both legislative bodies. The judges are publicly being called upon to act quickly. There is no doubt that the NPD is an anti-constitutional party. But do its "aggressive-belligerent" activities really pose a threat to German democracy as a whole? And since when has the constitutional court, rather than the police, been responsible for the safety of this country's German and non-German population? November 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 ############################################################ Far-Right Parties Collect Millions in Public Funds HAMBURG. The right-wing extremist National Democratic Party (NPD) and two other far-right parties received almost DM10 million ($4.8 million) in public funding last year, according to news reports published on Sunday. Parties are eligible for money from state coffers depending on how many votes they have collected in elections. The NPD, therefore, raked in more than DM1 million, the newspaper Bild am Sonntag wrote, quoting from statistics compiled by the Bundestag, the German parliament. A leading commentator on constitutional matters, the former constitutional judge Ernst Benda, labeled the regulations an "annoyance" and added that "it is unbearable that taxpayers in Germany co-finance radical-right parties." The spokesman for domestic affairs of the Social Democratic parliamentary group, Dieter Wiefelsp�tz, announced he would push for a change in legislation. (AP) November 5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 ############################################################ Cabinet Approves Appeal to Ban NPD By Johannes Leith�user BERLIN. The federal cabinet voted formally on Wednesday to seek a ban on the right-wing extremist National Democratic Party (NPD) and signaled that it hoped to get the request to the Federal Constitutional Court before the end of the year. German Interior Minister Otto Schily said the government would appoint a lawyer this week to prepare the ban application and submit it to the constitutional court in Karlsruhe. Mr. Schily told reporters that the cabinet had decided to seek the ban after examining a 70-page document summing up evidence which, he said, proved that the NPD was hostile to Germany's constitution. It was an opinion that he said was shared "unanimously" by the states. A clear majority of the states, Mr. Schily added, agreed with the federal government that the NDP had also shown "aggressive belligerence" to the constitution. The document essentially summarized material presented to the state premiers when they voted 14-0 two weeks ago to support the effort to ban the NPD, Mr. Schily said. Hesse and Saarland abstained in that vote. On Friday, the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the states at the national level, will make the states' backing official. In a gesture of cross-party support for combating political extremism in Germany, the motion preceding the vote will be introduced by Lower Saxony, which has a Social Democratic government, and Bavaria, which is governed by the Christian Social Union. However, even fewer states will back the ban appeal this time. Hesse and Saarland will be joined in abstaining by the city-state of Berlin, Baden-W�rttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate. The last two states say they will decline to vote at the behest of their governments' junior partner, the Free Democratic Party, which opposes the effort to ban the NPD on principle. Most observers expect the Bundestag, the German parliament, to ultimately support the request to the constitutional court, but the Social Democrats' parliamentary business manager, Wilhelm Schmidt, stressed that the lawmakers would not be rushed. Mr. Schmidt said the parliament could easily take until next month before giving its approval to the cabinet's draft. A second option, proposed by the Social Democrats' parliamentary leader, Peter Struck, would see the Bundestag making its own appeal. But Mr. Schily told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday that a motion of support from the Bundestag for the appeal from the cabinet and the states would gain the broadest support across party lines. A motion out of the Bundestag could be seen as partisan, he said. November 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 ############################################################ High Court's Decision on NPD Will Take Time to Formulate By Katja Gelinsky FRANKFURT. German Chancellor Gerhard Schr�der is determined to make an impression on the justices who will consider an application to ban the far-right extremist National Democratic Party (NPD). To do so, Mr. Schr�der is rallying the federal government and both legislative chambers around the petition in the belief that, if the politicians closed ranks, the German Constitutional Court could not turn down their bid. Psychologically, the chancellor might have a point. The justices in Karlsruhe could indeed conclude that if they rejected this united call, they could be accused of allowing the NPD to gain additional recognition. But there are several reasons that argue against Mr. Schr�der's plan. One group of the court's justices, for instance, recently approved right-wing demonstration petitions under certain conditions -- despite recent attacks on foreigners and heated debate over measures to stop such violence. The petitions were filed by Christian Worch of Hamburg, who was convicted in 1994 of being a leader of a right-wing extremist organization. The issue before the high court was whether Mr. Worch and his followers planned to hold a march with the specific purpose of honoring Rudolf Hess, Adolf Hitler's deputy in the Nazi party. After their review, the justices ruled that there was no official proof that Mr. Worch and his followers planned to march in honor of Mr. Hess. In doing so, the court rejected a list of arguments advanced by the Hamburg government, which maintained that, until 1995, Mr. Worch had co-organized Hess memorial events, that the parade was to take place in Hamburg two days after the anniversary of Mr. Hess' death, and that references to a Rudolf Hess demonstration in Hamburg were posted on the Internet. The decision demonstrates that the court does not cater to the political mood, even if it was handed down by a chamber of the court's First Senate, and not the Second Senate, which will hear the NPD case. Mr. Schr�der's attempt faces another barrier as well. An anti-NPD coalition consisting of the national government, the German parliament and the Bundesrat, the body representing the states at federal level, would be irrelevant to the justices' judgment. A second or third petition might improve the chances of banning the NPD only if these petitions provided additional material showing that the NPD was aggressively seeking the violent subversion of the Federal Republic of Germany. However, neither the parliament nor the Bundesrat is expected to provide any facts that would supplement the material the government has collected. In approaching the court, the legislative and executive branches would like the judges to limit its review to one issue: whether their assumption of unconstitutionality of the NPD is erroneous. But, when it comes to banning a party, the court cannot just simply think about accommodating the desires of the other branches of government. Instead, the court must independently determine whether the evidence supports the proposition that the NPD is an enemy of Germany's democratic order. The length of the court's review and its ultimate finding are impossible to predict. A look back at earlier party bans offers no guidance. The proceedings leading to the ban of the Socialist Reich Party and the Communist Party of Germany took place in the 1950s. Since then, both the political landscape and the composition of the court have changed. No one expects a swift decision to be made. The justice responsible for the preparatory work on the decision, Hans-Joachim Jentsch, is already carrying a large workload. The case could be accelerated, however, if in light of "the special significance of the case" the head of the Second Senate, Jutta Limbach, with the consent of the Senate, appointed what is called a co-reporter. There are, however, other cases pending before the Second Senate that urgently require its attention, including a decision on pension taxation. The NPD proceedings could come to a quick end if the Second Senate concluded from a preliminary review that none of the anticipated petitions was legally permissible or adequately substantiated. Such a preliminary review would still last for months and require the court to also give the NPD an opportunity to present its side of the case. November 8 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000
